“… Politico had covered the Civil War?” Michael Schaffer, at The New Republic:
…NOT-S0-GREAT EMANCIPATOR: “Lincoln Proclamation Stirs Controversy,” by Jethraux VandeHei: “Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation was bound to rile opponents who already viewed the president as high-handed and arbitrary… Senior White House officials assert that Lincoln has the authority to free slaves under the Constitution’s war-making provision. But Congressional Democrats have vowed to hold hearings, which could put border-state Republicans in an awkward position…. Lincoln is risking his presidency and his reputation on the uncertain notion that future generations will eventually appreciate the end of slavery.”
WEST-WING MINDMELD: This shows a direct, decisive president, something that will improve Lincoln’s ability to get his agenda through Congress.
FORMER GEN.-IN-CHIEF GEORGE MCCLELLAN, on MORNING JEHOSEPHAT: “Lincoln has flip-flopped once again on emancipation…. Washington politicians are doing an end run around the Constitution… I think we need less polarization and divisiveness during a civil war. A leader needs to stand up to extremists and reach out across the aisle. Lincoln has not led.” 1864 TEA LEAVES: “I am not ruling anything out, but I’m not ruling anything in.”
PLAY-BOOK FACTS OF LIFE: If the president can convince the public that he emancipated slaves simply to preserve the union, the story will blow over. If it emerges that he actually issued the proclamation because he believes involuntary bondage is an immoral affront to human dignity, we could be looking at months of hearings…
Easy pickings, but still (sadly) hilarious.
What’s on the agenda for the evening?